U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional.

From The Washington Post:

A Civil Rights Update.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms inside one’s home.

Leon said the right applies both inside and outside the home.

“The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote.

Nice to see a Judge actually following the law.

Should Government Employees be Allowed the Fifth Amendment Plea?

From The American Thinker Blog:

When a person is in the public service, when that person is compensated by the taxpayer, is it not demanded of the arrangement that there be transparency?

We all know Lois Lerner’s Fifth Amendment plea, and now we are going to learn of Hillary’s State Department’s computer expert doing same. He doesn’t want to tell us, his employer, what he was up to.
......................

Does the taxpayer, the citizen, not have the inherent right to know what that servant was doing with the powers and appointments of his or her position? Let’s take this to the absurd. Imagine the President, upon being asked a question regarding his use of power, replied, “I don’t want to tell you. I don’t have to tell you.”

If a situation exists where testimony is required by the “public servant” to explain how the powers endowed to him or her, by the people, were indeed executed, should not the person be required to reply or be terminated?

The employee must be accountable to the employer.
......................

Thomas Lifson adds: There may be legal problems in requiring suspension of a constitutional right as a condition of employment. Perhaps a more viable approach would be the suspension of all pay and benefits, including pension, for government employees who invoke the Fifth.

I like this idea!

Under pressure, Hillary is donating all her (University) spealing fees to her own foundation.

From Ace of Spades HQ:

But Ann Althouse has questions:

What is her salary from the foundation? How much of her expenses are covered by family foundation money? How many members of her family make salaries from that foundation? To what extent is the foundation an income tax dodge? And didn’t Hillary Clinton recently portray herself as not truly rich because she and Bill pay income tax on their money?
Taking from your foundation and putting it in my foundation… what a lovely, arrogant metaphor for a liberal’s view of government! I can spend your money better than you can. The universities have money that they might spend to improve education for their students and to advance scholarship, but it could be shifted into the Clinton Foundation which does whatever it does, some charitable things that maintain and advance the Clintons’ political fortunes.

One New Class hand washes the other.

It's a double windfall. Hillary donates her income to her tax free foundation, gets a tax write off, yet still is able to control the money.

Dirty, dirty, dirty! ! ! !

At the Core of the IRS Saga -- Tax Collectors as Political Hitmen

From J.D. Tuccille at Reason via Instapundit:

It’s all good fun to mock the Internal Revenue Service’s plausibility-challenged explanations for just how potentially embarrassing (to the IRS) emails were lost and why they can’t be recovered, but let’s not forget what’s at the core of the story: the tax collection agency’s long and storied history as a political hitman. IRS audits have been targeted at political opponents of incumbent presidents, tax information has been leaked about enemies of powerful members of Congress, and the agency’s own employees have abused their power for personal reasons.

Remember, the 2nd article of impeachment against was ATTEMPTING to use the IRS against his political opponents.

So what does it say about the Dear Leader since he was successful?

Darrell Issa Subpoenas Lois Lerner’s Hard Drive

From the Daily Caller:

Congress wants proof.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa subpoenaed IRS commissioner John Koskinen Tuesday for ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s computer hard drive and other electronic devices.

The IRS recently claimed that it lost 24,000 emails that Lerner exchanged with other Obama administration agencies and the White House between 2009 and 2011, during the period that Lerner was overseeing the improper targeting of conservative and tea party groups. The IRS claimed that Lerner’s computer crashed in 2011 and the emails were lost. IRS commissioner John Koskinen, however, testified in March that Lerner’s emails were all stored on a computer server.

Issa subpoenaed records and documents including “All back-up tapes, external drives, thumb drives, or other storage media the IRS used to capture, archive, back up, or otherwise record e-mails sent or received by Lois Lerner from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013″ and “All electronic communication devices the IRS issued to Lois G. Lerner from January 1, 2009, to September 23, 2013.”

I love it. Make them produce the drive!!!!!

Bill Whittle Goes There – Is Obama Evil or Stupid?

From Bill Whittle via Legal Insurrection:




I vote for evil.

Obama -- Sorry I Broke The Law In Not Notifying Congress About Prisoner Swap

From Breitbart's Big Government:

A top aide to President Obama is now apologizing to Congress for not informing lawmakers, as required by law, that the White House was planning to trade an alleged deserter for five top Taliban commanders.

The apology comes after Obama himself defended his actions this morning, insisting his administration had discussed the release with Congress “for some time.”

The Dear Leader lives by the rule, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

What Really Happened to Gibson Guitar

From Forbes Magazine:

(B)ut Gibson’s very success made it a fat target for federal prosecutors, whom Juszkiewicz alleges were operating at the behest of lumber unions and environmental pressure groups seeking to kill the market for lumber imports. “This case was not about conservation,” he says. “It was basically protectionism.”

Two months before the raid, lobbyists slipped some arcane supply-chain reporting provisions into an extension of the Lacey Act of 1900 that changed the technical definition of “fingerboard blanks,” which are legal to import.

With no clear legal standards, a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day, no formal charges filed, and the threat of a prison term hanging over any executive who does not take “due care” to abide by this absurdly vague law, Gibson settled. “You’re fighting a very well organized political machine in the unions,” Juszkiewicz concluded. “And the conservation guys have sort of gone along.” Hey, what’s not to like about $50,000?

Crony Capitalism strikes again.

To Roth, or Not to Roth

From Megan McCardle of Bloomberg News:

What will the tax rate on your income be when you retire — higher or lower than your current tax rate?

Hard to say, isn’t it? We’re running some substantial deficits, and we’ve made some big promises to retirees. Those obligations will have to be paid for somehow, and by “somehow,” I mean “With higher taxes on someone.” What are the chances that you’ll be that someone? Pretty high, if you save a lot for retirement.

That makes a Roth sound like a pretty good bet. But unfortunately, the same logic that suggests higher income taxes in the future also suggests that a hungry-eyed Congress might settle on all those fat tax-free retirement accounts as a way to balance the books. What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. Can you really count on that income being tax-free when it’s finally time to collect it?

Do you trust Congress to keep their promises?

The heavy hand of the IRS seizes innocent Americans’ assets

From George Will of the Washington Post:

She remembers, “They just walked into the store” and announced that they had emptied the store’s bank account. The IRS agents believed, or pretended to believe, that Terry and Sandy were or conceivably could be — which is sufficient for the IRS — conducting a criminal enterprise when not selling groceries.

What pattern of behavior supposedly aroused the suspicions of a federal government that is ignorant of how small businesses function? Terry and Sandy regularly make deposits of less than $10,000 in the bank across the street. Federal law, aimed primarily at money laundering by drug dealers, requires banks to report cash deposits of more than $10,000. It also makes it illegal to “structure” deposits to evade such reporting.

Because 35 percent of Schott’s Supermarket’s receipts are in cash, Terry and Sandy make frequent trips to the bank to avoid tempting actual criminals by having large sums at the store. Besides, their insurance policy covers no cash loss in excess of $10,000.

In 2010 and 2012, IRS agents visited the store and examined Terry’s and Sandy’s conduct. In 2012, the IRS notified them that it identified “no violations” of banking laws. But on Jan. 22, 2013, Terry and Sandy discovered that the IRS had obtained a secret warrant and emptied the store’s bank account. Sandy says that if the IRS had acted “the day before, there would have been only about $2,000 in the account.” Should we trust that today’s IRS was just lucky in its timing?

The IRS used “civil forfeiture,” the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime. The IRS could have dispelled its suspicions of Terry and Sandy, if it actually had any, by simply asking them about the reasons — prudence, and the insurance limit — for their banking practices. It had, however, a reason not to ask obvious questions before proceeding.

The civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law — is an incentive for perverse behavior: Predatory government agencies get to pocket the proceeds from property they seize from Americans without even charging them with, let alone convicting them of, crimes. Criminals are treated better than this because they lose the fruits of their criminality only after being convicted.

Another example of out of control government that uses administrative rules and policies to require one to prove themselves innocent. They have removed the burden of the State to prove one's guilt.

Fight federal abuse of property rights by making the government obey its own rules

From the Washington Times:

I had published his 1989 book, Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands, which unleashed the federal fury.

The message terrified abusive bureaucrats: There are private rights in federal lands – vested rights, not privileges.

His book, the product of three intensive, grueling years consulting with dozens of experts and sifting through many archives, found the dirty little secret that could destroy the abusive power of all federal Western land agencies – by making them obey their own laws.

It was so stunning that a sitting Supreme Court justice secretly sent Wayne a message marveling at his shining intellect - burnished with a masters degree in animal science and honed by academic colloquies as a trustee of the University of Nevada Foundation - and warning of the titanic battle to come.

How true: Hage was convicted of brush cutting but acquitted on appeal. His own lawsuit against the United States took almost 20 years, but proved there are private rights in federal land. He died of cancer in 2006 before he could see how great a victory he had won – and how the battle is still just beginning, as Bundy foresaw.

A variant of Alinsky's Rules for Radical.

When ‘No’ Means ‘No’ -- Lois Lerner willfully and knowingly exposed herself to a contempt vote.

From C. Boyden Gray at National Review:

First, about the facts: There can be no serious dispute that Ms. Lerner knew that the committee had rejected her refusal to testify, as Hans von Spakovsky recounted on National Review Online recently. She could have held no reasonable doubts about this, after the committee passed the resolution rejecting her invocation of the Fifth Amendment and directing her to testify, let alone after the committee reminded her of that fact in its February 2014 letter recalling her to testify.

Second, Ms. Lerner’s defenders are wrong on the law. Representative Cummings asserts in his letter to Speaker Boehner that the committee cannot hold Ms. Lerner in contempt because the committee did not demonstrate to Ms. Lerner the “certainty” that “a contempt prosecution was inevitable.”

It strains credulity to suggest that an eventual contempt prosecution must be “inevitable” in order for a witness to be held in contempt at the outset of the process. After all, the committee itself has no power to prosecute the witness for contempt. As the House Counsel’s office explained, in a memorandum affirming the Chairman’s position, it is impossible for the committee ever to guarantee prosecution: The committee can only vote to recommend to the full House that Ms. Lerner be held in contempt, after which it falls to the full House to vote on the recommendation. And even then the matter is subject to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney to present the matter to the grand jury for indictment. (It is worth recalling that the House voted in 2012 to hold the attorney general in contempt, for his refusal to comply with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena for documents regarding the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal — and the U.S. Attorney has never prosecuted him.)

And in fact, the law sensibly does not require such a showing of “certainty” in order for the committee to begin the contempt process. The Supreme Court’s leading cases on this question — Quinn v. United States (1955), Emspak v. United States (1955), and Bart v. United States (1955) — certainly require no such thing. Rather, as the Court explained in Quinn, Ms. Lerner merely must be “clearly apprised that the committee demands [her] answer notwithstanding [her] objections” before she can be convicted for contempt. (And again, Ms. Lerner is not yet being convicted, or even prosecuted for contempt — she is merely being considered for a committee vote to recommend that she be held in contempt.) Even at this early stage in the process, the record shows that the committee easily satisfies that standard.

Lerner is counting on Holder NOT pursuing the case. The strategy is delay, delay, delay, hoping everyone will forget about it.

The General Motors Scandal May Be Worse Than You Think -- Does anyone believe the Obama administration took as hard a look at GM as it did Toyota?

From Reason via InstaPundit:

In February 2010, the Obama administration’s transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. “My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it,” he said, sending the company’s stock into a nose dive.

Even at the time, LaHood’s comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state’s owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood’s comment into perspective today, it’s actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that was causing preventable deaths.

There's Government Motors for you.

Do you think that Chicago style politics had NOTHING to do with the Toyota bashing?

The government knew about GM ignition problems and did nothing.

From Road & Track via Instapundit:

When all else fails, we ultimately rely on government regulators to ensure our safety on the road. Unfortunately, the still-unfolding GM scandal reveals that motorists can hardly rely on this last line of defense. That's because, like so many aspects of the US regulatory system, auto safety officials have more incentive to serve the interests of the automakers they are charged with watchdogging than to fulfill their public duty. Though the GM scandal is grabbing attention, it's clear that the NHTSA's problems run deeper than its failure to catch an ignition scandal it knew about as early as 2004 and only considered formally investigating in 2007.

A recent New York Times article reveals the depth of revolving-door problem among auto regulators, pointing out that the last administrator of the National Highway Transit Safety Administration, David Strickland, left the agency for a lobbying firm employed by Chrysler the day after approving a controversial "fix" for rear-impact fire risk in Jeep Grand Cherokees. The fact that Strickland was apparently negotiating a job with a Chrysler lobbyist while making the decision to drop a recall of Grand Cherokees adds to a drumbeat of concern about this issue that dates back to at least the Toyota recall firestorm of 2010.

This is the Government shouldn't own a car company, inherit conflict of interest.

Lois Lerner could go to jail in contempt clash

From the Editorial Page of the Washington Examiner:

This may come as a shock to Lois Lerner, but the House of Representatives has the authority to jail her unless she changes her mind about refusing to answer questions about her role in the IRS scandal. Essentially, what is required for that to happen is for a House majority to vote for a motion holding her in contempt and House Speaker John Boehner to then direct the House sergeant at arms to arrest and confine her. Under the Constitution, the House can do that under its “inherent contempt” authority, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying. Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, inherent contempt has the unique advantage that it doesn’t require “the cooperation or assistance of either the executive or judicial branches. The House or Senate can, on its own, conduct summary proceedings and cite the offender for contempt.” The prospect of an eight or nine month stretch in the congressional slammer might have a sobering effect on Lerner. On the other hand, neither the House nor the Senate has used this authority since 1935, according to the CRS report, because the process can be “unseemly” and time-consuming.

Since Lerner is assuming or has been assured the Executive Branch won't go after her, since she is covering for them. It's time to exert some inconvenience on the lady.

Boehner, just do it!!!

MILLER: Exclusive — Shock verdict — Mark Witaschek guilty of possessing muzzleloader bullets in D.C.

From Emily Miller of the Washington Times:

The judge seemed inclined to throw out this charge since he repeatedly asked how the bullets could be illegal if the gun that they go in was not.

During lunch, the government came up with a list from ATF of types of muzzleloader rifles that could be converted to use rimfire ammunition. Not that Mr. Witaschek owned one of these nor was modern ammo at issue in the trial.

Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.” He then ruled that Mr. Witaschek had possessed “beyond a reasonable doubt” the copper-and-lead, conical-shaped pieces in D.C.

The judge, however, still seemed to think this was a strange issue for a court. “It’s taken four lawyers all afternoon to get through an interpretation of whether or not these are lawful,” he noted. ..............

On the way out of the courtroom after his conviction, Mr. Witaschek said that the court clerk came up to him privately and said, “I’m glad you don’t live in D.C. anymore. These people are nuts about guns.”

I'm happy to hear that is attorneys plan to appeal this decision.

TO be judged by someone so ignorant of firearms is quite scary.

He needed the David Gregory Exemption.

The Week in Pictures -- Time for Reset Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Senate Report: EPA Official Convicted of Bilking Government Out of Nearly a Million Dollars Was Critical Player in Crafting EPA's "Playbook" on Regulations

From Ace of Spades HQ: Remember this guy? He skipped out of work constantly, and, at one point, collected a steady paycheck despite not showing up for work for a year and a half.

Between 2000 and 2012, Beale skipped work for at least 616 days. But his fraud wasn’t discovered until last year when it was found out that he was still getting paid for a year and a half but hadn’t shown up for work in that whole time. Under McCarthy, Beale missed at least 18 consecutive months of work, costing taxpayers more than $239,000.

He covered his absences by claiming he was working for top men in the CIA.

Who?

Top. Men.

But despite his chronic absenteeism, he did manage to do Big Things when he troubled himself to show up at work.

A report by Senate Republicans contends that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory “playbook” was written by known agency fraudster John Beale, who put into place major air quality regulations that set the stage for “the exponential growth of the agency’s power over the American economy.” .....................

“This report will reveal that within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), some officials making critically important policy decisions were not remotely qualified, anything but neutral, and in at least one case — EPA decision making was delegated to a now convicted felon and con artist, John Beale,” wrote Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. ......................

“Together, Brenner and Beale implemented a plan, which this report refers to as ‘EPA’s Playbook,’” the senators continued. “The Playbook includes several tools first employed in the 1997 process, including sue-and-settle arrangements with a friendly outside group, manipulation of science, incomplete cost-benefit analysis reviews, heavy-handed management of interagency review processes, and capitalizing on information asymmetry, reinforced by resistance to transparency. Ultimately, the guiding principal behind the Playbook is the Machiavellian principal that the ends will justify the means.”

From the Most Transparent Administration evah!

Ezekiel Emanuel lets the cat out of the bag on Obamacare

From the Daily Caller:

Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel seems like an honest guy — even when it gets him in trouble. And that honesty was on full display Wednesday, after the healthcare expert denounced the policy implications of yet another Obamacare delay but admitted that “for the political gain, it’s worth it.” ..................

The White House routinely denies that their changes to Obamcare — 30 and counting — are politically motivated, instead arguing that they are merely seeking to implement the law most effectively. But Emanuel — who worked for years as a healthcare expert in the Obama administration — admitted this new delay isn’t about policy, but the ballot box.

Thomas Lifson of American Thinker writes:

Last year I wrote about Ezekiel Emanuel becoming a “favorite” of mine for his obnoxious and unpersuasive attempts to explain and support Obamacare. He is so arrogant that he presumes rationalizations that work for him will equally persuade others, because, after all, he so much more intelligent than everyone else that his logic is impeccable.

Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and former Chief of Staff of Presidents Clinton and Obama, is a classic example of an Ivory Towered intellectual. Since he is never challenged on his theories, he does not know how to defend them when questions by a non-fawning member of the Drive-By-Media.

What Happens when Lois Lerner Returns to Testify Next Week?

From Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler:

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), has recalled IRS honcho Lois Lerner to testify on the agency’s abuse of Tea Party and conservative groups. She has since retired from the IRS and is receiving a six-figure retirement income, making more money per year after leaving her government job in disgrace than most Americans make working full-time.

Last time America saw Lerner was last May, when she raised her hand and was sworn in to testify, then declared her innocence and took the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) pointed out at the time that Lerner is not allowed to declare innocence and then take the Fifth. The committee reserved the right to bring her back and compel her to testify.

Lerner is angling for immunity, which should be enough to tell you that this isn’t a “fake scandal.”